I do find the criticism of photography as representation, which states that with representation the photograph erases itself, as an object in itself, in favour of the thing depicted, a rather strange one. The criticism is that the photo becomes a metaphysical window on something else, in relation to which it is inferior - the image is of a lesser reality than the thing of which it is an mage or to which it refers; that which it apparently represents.
The criticism is right to the extent that a photograph is both a representation of bark fragments and an object in itself:
However, after the demise of modernism, why would we say that the image is a lesser reality and the bark primary? Surely the image is real and just as real as the bark. What we see on the screen is an image--it's blurry or indistinct, a rich colour palette of green and orange and it is poetic. Even though we know that this photo is a representation -- an abstracture -- of pieces of bark that have peeled of the trunk of a tree we do not see the image as inferior to the bark.